MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           27 June 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999031030

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun
Mr. David H. Keller		Director
Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded and that he be compensated for an injury he received on active duty.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he had a service-connected injury which did not heal and which led to a drug and alcohol addiction problem.  He adds that he received no help, even when he asked for it.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  Counsel offered no evidence or argument beyond that submitted with the application.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

He entered active duty on 16 May 1984 and, after training, was assigned to Fort Bliss, Texas.

On 22 March 1988, the applicant was formally charged with AWOL from 3 November 1986 to 15 March 1988.  He consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of a trial by court-martial.  In so doing, he acknowledged that he was guilty of the charge against him which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, that he did not desire further rehabilitation, nor did he have a desire for further military service.  He stated that he understood the nature and consequences of the undesirable discharge that he might receive.  He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The Board notes that the applicant signed a statement on 16 March 1988 declining a separation medical examination.

On 27 April 1988, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for separation in lieu of a trial by court-martial and directed he be issued a Discharge Certificate Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.

The applicant was discharged on 25 May 1988 at Fort Dix, New Jersey.  He had 2 years, 7 months and 27 days of creditable service and 598 days of time lost.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

Title 10, United States Code, chapter 61, provides disability retirement or separation for a member who is physically unfit to perform the duties of his or her office, rank, grade or rating because of disability incurred while entitled to basic pay.

Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 1-2, provides that a soldier who is charged with an offense or is under investigation for an offense for which he could be dismissed or given a punitive discharge may not be referred for physical disability processing.  However, if the officer exercising appropriate court-martial jurisdiction dismisses the charge or refers it for trial to a court-martial which cannot adjudge such a sentence, the case may be referred for disability processing.  When forwarded, the records of such a case must contain a copy of the action signed by the court-martial authority who made the decision.

On 21 July 1999, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of his discharge.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant has not shown that he incurred a service-connected disability.  In fact, he declined to undergo a separation medical examination at the time he was being processed for discharge.

2.  The applicant’s military service was not interrupted by physical disability.  Notwithstanding the presence, or possible presence, of various medical conditions, there is no evidence of record, nor has the applicant provided sufficient evidence, which would indicate that he suffered from any medical condition of such severity that he was rendered unable to reasonably perform the duties of his office, rank, grade or rating.

3.  The applicant's voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

4.  The applicant's request for a chapter 10 discharge, even after appropriate and proper consultation with a military lawyer, tends to show he wished to avoid the court-martial and the punitive discharge that he might have received.

5.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__mdm__  __wtm__  __clg____  DENY APPLICATION

    Carl W. S. Chun
    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999031030	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000627	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19880525	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200 CH10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A71.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.	145.00	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.